
^ IS 




c/y^^-i^^^ 



: /4^ 



7 

Who is the Strong Man 
of the War in America? 



Wilson 
Bryan 



Roosevelt 
Taft 




Ml Ml MANGASARIAN 



/ 



REPORT OF A LECTURE DELIVEREl 
BEFORE THE 

INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS SOCIETY 



1918 
CHICAG 





^ 



^3b 



A list of M. M. Mangasarian*s 
Recent Publications 

The Pope's Peace 

Why is the Kaiser so Religious? 

Are the Germans the White Slaves of Europe? 

The Big Men of the Hour 

; Address 



Independent Religious Society 



1307 No. 8 So. Dearborn Street 



Chicago 



Who is the Strong Man of the War 
in America? 



Criticism may be described as a mental antiseptic. It 
is a preventive of infection — the infection of error. The 
principal aim of criticism, however, is to protect thought 
from stagnation. To criticise means to agitate, and agitation 
keeps our ideas under a constant stream of fresh air and 
light. Even when the criticism is unjust, it is better than no 
criticism at all. If a religion or a government, or an insti- 
tution is never criticised, it is a proof that it is not sufficiently 
alive to interest people. If a man has no enemies, it may 
be interpreted as a sign that he has no convictions. We are 
entitled to protection against misrepresentation, and to dam- 
ages for libel, or slander, but to ask for protection against 
criticism for our work or platfrom or party or creed, is 
to admit the weakness of our cause. 

The most freely and frequently criticised institution in 
this country is the government. But the government itself 
is the greatest of critics. The government is always investi- 
gating something or somebody — always examining or plac- 
ing officials on the witness stand. There is not a man in 
the service of the people who may not be summoned on short 
notice before a committee to answer questions. The Secre- 
tary of War was investigated only the other day. The Food 
Commissioner was examined by a committee not very long 
ago. Mr. Daniels, of the Navy, has had his share of criti- 
cism, and Senator Chamberlain did not hesitate the other day 
to attack even the President of the United States. This is the 
democratic method. It was so in Athens twenty five hun- 
dred years ago; it was so in George Washington's day; and 
it ought to be so always. No man, much less a public man, 
should be deemed above criticism. No office, or position, 
or title, or profession, should make a man immune from 
criticism. 



Criticism hurts the critic himself when it is hasty. 
Perhaps Chamberlain spoke before he was ready, or before 
he had finished his investigations. But even then his 
criticism gave Mr. Baker a chance to inform the country 
on many points concerning which the people were in the 
dark. Criticism, when based upon research and prompted 
by courage, instead of leading to controversy, barren and 
destructive, leads to reconciliation through the correction 
of the error, or the reform of the evil criticised. 

While I was reading of the way congress turned the 
search-light upon every man, no matter who he may be, 
and upon everything, never mind how well established and 
by doing so, prevents dishonesty from masquerading as 
honesty, or inefficiency from usurping the prestige that be- 
longs to merit — I wished we were equally enthusiastic about 
the benefits of agitation and criticism in religion. Unfort- 
unately, the label religious on an institution, or on a person, 
completely disarms criticism. You may impeach a presi- 
dent, dethrone an emperor, or overthrow an autocracy, but 
where is the tribunal that can summon a pope, for example, 
to appear before it? And there is no man who deserves to be 
investigated in connection with the war more than the pope. 
But it is well for the pope that no such tribunal exists, for 
if it did, and he were placed on the witness stand and 
examined and cross-examined, as many a public official is, — 
and the workings of the system, of which he is the head, 
exposed — how long do you think the spiritual autocracy 
would last? 

In the political world the men who command the atten- 
tion of the nation are President Wilson, the two ex-presi- 
dents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and 
the frequent candidate for the presidency, Mr. Bryan. 
These men have many admirers and followers in the country, 
they are in the public eye and they command the public ear. 
More than that, these men have power to do things. They 
say Mr. Bryan made Woodrow Wilson president. That 
would prove that he is a factor in the democratic party. 
Mr. Bryan has also a growing clientele in religious circles, 
and as the spokesman of the prohibition party — the apostle 
of the "Drys," whose political power is on the increase, 
Mr. Bryan may yet be elected to the presidency. 

Former President Taft is a quiet man, but he too has 
a considerable following, and he has never been busier than 



since our country entered the war. He speaks frequently 
to audiences of business men, to the soldier boys at the 
various camps, and to large popular gatherings in the great 
cities. And he is the organizer and president of the League 
to Enforce Peace after Victory. Surely, he should be reck- 
oned among the big men who are today moulding and direct- 
ing American opinion. The country is indebted to William 
Howard Taft for the energy and intelligence with which he 
is serving the nation in this critical hour. 

And no one will question that Theodore Roosevelt is, 
has been, and in all probability will be as long as he lives, 
a power in the country. We may not like him, or agree 
with him, but we have got to listen to him. We may not 
want to follow him, but he will not let us alone. That is 
a proof of personality and power. The man has convictions. 
He feels deeply. He is warm. He is alive. He is con- 
tagious. Even when he is wrong he is strong, because he 
is nothing in a half-hearted or lukewarm fashion. If he 
hates you, he hates you with all his might, and does not 
make a secret of it; if he is with you, you have in him a 
"bully" good friend. 

The re-election of Woodrow Wilson to the presidency, 
despite the powerful combination against him could be cited 
as a proof of his prestige with the nation. He is looked 
up to for counsel and guidance not only by his own people, 
but by the nations across the seas. His words are translated 
into every language and repeated all over the world. It 
is not so much because he is the President of the United 
States, that Europe and Asia and Africa lift up their eyes 
to gaze upon him, as it is that he is Woodrow Wilson 1 

Surely it was not flattery when the newly appointed 
British ambassador, Earl Reading paid so warm and glow- 
ing a tribute to our president. "No human being," he said, 
"has the faculty of stating the true nature of our ideals as 
your president, the man who speaks for you." We Ameri- 
cans have a right to be proud of such a representative. To 
compliment Woodrow Wilson is to compliment the Ameri- 
can people. "We in Europe" continues the ambassador, "have 
learned to look to those words of his and to cherish them as 
representing to us the unalterable determination of Ameri- 
ca, once it has commenced to war in vindication of right, 
never to sheathe the sword until it has conquered. We know 
that the words spoken by your president are words upon 



which we can build. We do. They are messages of hope 
and comfort to us." 

Whether rightly or wrongly, Mr. Wilson has come to be 
regarded as the cleanest man in world politics today. He 
is also believed to be one of the ablest. At any rate he 
has aroused high hopes in the breast of our stricken world. 

Of course, I could mention the names of other men in 
other departments of life who loom big on the horizon in 
this anxious hour, but confining myself to the sphere of 
politics, I shall not go beyond the four names I have just 
mentioned. 

I shall speak of President Wilson first, because he is the 
man of the hour. He is on the bridge of the ship of state; 
the others are on board only as passengers. Even Mr. 
Bryan is not one of the crew, for although he is of the same 
political faith as the president, he is out of office. 

The important question in the minds of Messrs. Taft 
and Roosevelt and their coteries is "Can Captain Wilson 
save the ship? Does he understand navigation? Is he an 
experienced sailor?" On the other hand, what is agitating 
Wilson and giving him no little concern is the fear that his 
distinguished passengers and former sea-captains may insist 
upon meddling, which might demoralize or cripple the 
service and even lead to mutiny on board the ship in mid- 
ocean. Let me not forget to say that former President Taft 
has more than once expressed complete satisfaction with the 
way President Wilson is piloting the nation. But still he is 
of another party and did his best to elect Mr. Hughes to the 
presidency. 

And perhaps Mr. Taft is mentally more in sympathy 
with Mr. Wilson than he is with Mr. Roosevelt. For 
example, Mr. Taft believes that a League of Nations could 
enforce peace. Mr. Wilson seems to share that opinion. 
Roosevelt, on the contrary, regards a League of Nations 
enforcing peace as a chimera. Universal disarmament is 
neither attainable nor is it desirable, according to Mr. 
Roosevelt. I am inclined to think that he is more practical 
on that question than the other gentlemen. The only way 
peace and friendship can be maintained is through inter- 
national confidence, and that cannot be enforced. More- 
over how is peace to be enforced if we are all disarmed? 
At best then an armed peace is all that a League of nations 
can promise. Of course, even that is preferable to war. 



But how is peace of any kind to be enforced? And as 
already suggested, what are we to enforce it with if the 
nations are disarmed? And if a league of nations may 
enforce peace at the point of the bayonet why may it not also 
enforce a certain form of government or religion? 

But the academic objections against a League of nations 
to enforce anything are not very serious after all; the real 
objections are of a practical nature. We have for a neighbor 
Mexico which, a great part of the time is in a state of dis- 
order. Would we consent to submit the proposition to 
allow Japan or Germany the right to take Mexico in hand, 
with a view to restore order there — establish the industries 
and direct its finances, to an international court in which 
perhaps the representative of the Sultan of Turkey or of 
the Kaiser of Austria-Hungary will cast the deciding vote? 
It may be that it is not the intention of the sponsors of a 
League of Nations to submit such vital questions as are 
covered by the Monroe Doctrine to a court of arbitration. 
If so then a League of Nations can not be of any material 
help to us in real trouble. 

There is a report that the Russians have demanded 
of our government to release Emma Goldman, Berkman, 
and Mooney of California who was convicted of murder. 
Is it the idea that this demand of the Bolsheviki should be 
submitted to an international tribunal? But that would 
mean that before we could enforce a sentence passed by our 
own courts we would have to consult the Bolsheviki in 
Russia, the Chamber of Deputies in France, the House of 
Commons in England, etc. What nation with red blood in 
its veins would submit to that? If the Bolsheviki have their 
way, the Supreme Court in Washington would not be our 
Supreme Court at all. The court of final appeals would 
be the one in which, as intimated, a Bolshevik or a Turk 
may cast the deciding ballot. Would it not be wiser for the 
Russians to settle their own affairs instead of dictating to 
other nations? 

This does not mean that there are not hundreds of inter- 
national questions which could be safely and profitably sub- 
mitted to a central tribunal elected to act with authority. 
The success of arbitration has been more than once demon- 
strated. But since not all disputes can be so settled it follows 
that universal military service is indispensable to any nation 
that is jealous of her honor and sovereignty. These remarks 



are offered not in criticism of the League of Nations idea, 
but only to shatter the illusion, if possible, that such a 
league will enable us to dispense with preparedness. The 
nation that prefers opiates and anodynes to banners and 
battle-cries is lost. "Trust in God and keep your powder 
dry" was the advice of the Arabian reformer; let us trust 
in the League of Nations to enforce peace and "keep our 
powder dry." 

But President Wilson's most formidable rival is 
Theodore Roosevelt, and there is no denying the fact that 
while Taft and Wilson and Bryan could meet on a common 
ground, I do not think that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore 
Roosevelt could ever assimilate each other's political 
philosophy. They are two opposites. I am not suggesting 
that they are enemies. They are not. But they are two 
diametrically contrary natures. The phrase "watchful 
waiting" is Wilsonian. The word "bully" is Rooseveltian. 
Had the latter been president when the Lusitania was tor- 
pedoed, there is no doubt that we would not have waited 
nearly three years before breaking relations with that evil 
power. Of course, I am unable to say whether entering the 
war three years earlier would have been wiser, but my point 
is to illustrate the difference between the two temperaments. 

Mr. Roosevelt is quicker to respond to his environment 
than Mr. Wilson. The former rushes on, the latter lingers. 
Mr. Roosevelt would have led us into war; with Mr. 
Wilson, it is we who led him to declare war. Mr. Wilson's 
conception of a great nation like America is, or was, that of 
a nation living as much as possible unto itself — free from 
what Washington described as entangling alliances, closeted 
and aloof from the noise and rattle of over-sea quarrels; 
Mr. Roosevelt's idea of a great nation is that of an active, 
aggressive, meddling power, everywhere present to defend 
the right and defeat the wrong. Mr. Wilson would have 
said, I do not think he will now, but his attitude at one time 
was, that so long as American territory was not invaded it 
was not any of our concern what they were fighting for in 
Europe. In one of his speeches in Congress in 1914, Mr. 
Wilson used the expression "It does not concern us," when 
speaking of the terrible conflict in Europe. It would be 
difficult to imagine a man of Roosevelt's endowment taking 
so academic a view of a world-war. 



Our country is not only geographical, it is also moral. 
Ideas are just as much our country as soil, sand and sea. 
Institutions, civilization, liberty, the right— these are our 
moral possessions, they are property conquered, and to attack 
them is to attack America. Mr. Wilson's country has 
boundaries; Mr. Roosevelt's is the whole cosmos of law and 
honor! 

It will be seen that it is not always Mr. Wilson who is 
the idealist, and Roosevelt the practical statesman. At the 
outbreak of the war, Mr. Wilson was bent upon saving the 
hves, the rights and the property of American citizens. 
That is practical statesmanship. Mr. Roosevelt, on the other 
hand, at once clamored for war against a ruthless enemy 
that made life, rights and property worthless so long as it 
remained the victor on the field of battle. That is idealism. 
And yet, America's experience has shown that under the 
circumstances his idealism was more practical than the 
strictly practical program of the president during the first 
years of the war. 

One of the very first messages which Mr. Wilson de- 
livered to the American people at the outbreak of the war 
contained the request that we be neutral— neutral even in 
our thoughts. Do you hear? It was indeed a most remark- 
able request. Not only were we to take no active part on 
one side or the other, not only were we to speak neither for 
Germans nor for the Allies,— but we were not even to think 
more of one than of the other belligerent. Mr. Wilson real- 
izing how unprepared our country was for war, and fearing 
that our sympathies and antipathies, unless suppressed, 
might sweep us into the maelstrom, almost begged us to 
refrain even from thinking about the war. Our kinsmen 
across the water were in a life and death wrestle, but we were 
not even to think about it one way or another, but to go on 
mining coal, selling cotton, digging oil wells, and taking no 
pains to investigate the issues at stake, lest we should come 
to hold one side in the right and the other in the wrong. 
How extraordinary! And one would infer that the presi- 
dent did himself what he wished us to do, and remained 
neutral even in thought, like a god in alabaster. But I am 
not reminding you of this to prejudice you against him, but 
merely to disclose his point of view and his temperament- 
He wished for peace as the summum bonum, and to secure 
It, he was ready to shut our eyes, our ears, our minds, and to 



silence our consciences as well as his own. If we could, 
as a nation have gone to sleep, like Rip Van Winkle, until 
the war was over, it would have pleased the president in 
19 14. But all this only shows the intensity with which 
President Wilson coveted peace. 

In our criticisriis of Woodrow Wilson it would be only 
fair to remember that he is president at a period which is 
the most critical thus far in the history of our republic. 
Washington, too, had great responsibilities as the first 
president of the country, but the war with England cannot 
be compared with the inhuman and barbaric methods Ger- 
many has introduced into the present war; nor did England, 
in 1776, entertain the ambitions which in 19 18 Germany is 
seeking to realize in her efforts to dominate the world and 
destroy the rights of man. Moreover, when Washington 
became president, a victorious peace had finally been con- 
quered by American arms. Abraham Lincoln had a heavier 
burden to carry during the civil war; but Wilson's burden 
is heavier still, because it is not only a very much stronger 
enemy that he is pitted against, but also an enemy who is 
three thousand miles from home. 

Besides, the German and Irish intrigues in this country, 
and on a vast scale, greatly increased the difficulties of 
President Wilson's position. The Irish and German-Ameri- 
cans together represent effective political strength in the 
country. Their combined hatred against England blinded 
them to any virtues the president possessed. They did not 
thank Wilson for keeping us out of the war, because they 
wanted him also to prevent us from selling to the Allies or 
sailing on the seas. And now that we are at war, they like 
Wilson even less because of the fear that by defending 
America against Germany we might be indirectly helping 
England. 

There is a tradition, I know not to what extent it can 
be depended upon, — that the democratic party has a larger 
following of Irish- Americans than any of the other parties. 
Observe in connection with this that many prominent Irish- 
Americans in New York and elsewhere openly and stoutly 
espoused the cause of Germany at the outbreak of the war. 
No doubt this element in the democratic party brought 
considerable pressure to bear upon the president during that 
long period of hesitation. One of the intercepted Bernstorf 
messages requested from the Kaiser a pro-Irish utterance, 

10 



which was to be used in this country to reward the Irish 
for their activities against the Allies. I believe the Kaiser 
counted on the support of the Irish-Americans almost as 
much as he did on that of the German-Americans. To- 
gether they were expected to keep America out of the war. 
Mr. Wilson had these unruly political friends to conciliate. 

The pro-Germans insisted even after we entered 
the war that a way could be divised by which we could 
fight Germany without recognizing England as an ally. 
"We are willing to fight for America, but not for England," 
represented their attitude. Which meant that they did not, 
want England to help us fight Germany, or to help us defend 
our country. It meant that they did not want the English 
fleet to protect our ships or transports — that is to say, they 
preferred to take greater chances against Germany, or to 
give to that country greater odds to sink our ships and invade 
our soil. To object to England for an ally is to make it 
easier for Germany to win the war. That is evident enough. 

Suppose a German in Berlin were to say, "I like to 
fight for Germany, but not for Turkey." But if he fights 
for Germany will he not also be helping Turkey? Let me 
ask the anglophobe Irish this question: Do you want 
America to defeat Germany? If so, will not that help 
England? Tell me, then, how you expect to fight for 
America without fighting also for England. Why do you 
not have the honesty and courage to say you are for Ger- 
many, at heart? When you say you do not wish to be fight- 
ing for England, you really mean that you do not want to 
fight for America. 

And what is this prejudice against England based upon? 
Why do people prefer Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria, to Eng- 
land? If England has her Ireland, has not Germany her 
Poland? The richer and progressive portion of Ireland is 
pro-British; can it be said that a large part of Poland is 
ready to fight not to be separated from Germany, as the 
north of Ireland is to remain in fellow-ship with England? 
The German propaganda against England is indirectly an 
attempt not only to divide the United States into hostile 
camps, but also to help prejudice our people against the 
English language, — English literature and English institu- 
tions and traditions, hoping thereby to draw us into the pan- 
German alliance. The main object of the anti-British 
propaganda is to Germanize the United States. To effect 

11 



this purpose, nothing seems to be too absurd to say against 
the English, even now, when English and American soldiers 
are fighting side by side in a common cause. But the anti- 
English feeling of the Irish and the Germans was so stub- 
born that any strong proof that the President favored the 
cause of the Allies would have made his election to the 
presidency for a second term impossible. In criticising, 
therefore, Mr. Wilson's earlier attitude toward the belliger- 
ents and his pacifist utterances we must be impartial enough 
to realize that he was practically compelled to win his 
fight against the pro-German pacifists in his own party be- 
fore he could count on any strong support for his policies.^ 

^ About six months after we had entered the war, pro-German publica- 
tions were still calling upon the president to "strafe England." In the 
August (191 7) issue of The Open Court, edited by a man born in Ger- 
many, an article appeared entitled "English Diplomacy." 

The present world-war, in the opinion of this German-American 
editor, was provoked by England to make a rapprochement between Ger- 
many and America impossible. "England has a high contempt for America 
and American efficiency," says The Open Court, "but the main point even 
now is not so much to gain the United States as an ally for herself as to 
alienate the United States and Germany not only for the present but for 
all time to come," 

These weighty and damning conclusions are based on w^hat the editor 
read, many years ago, in an English newspaper, the name of which he does 
not give — that Great Britain was willing to let Germany lay the founda- 
tions of a colonial empire in South America. Of course, the English were 
well aware that our Monroe Doctrine would not permit a German inva- 
sion of this continent, but then the English, suggests The Open Court, did 
not care a button for the Monroe Doctrine. What they were after was 
to make Germany and America enemies. 

The responsibility for this carnival of blood lies at the door of "Eng- 
lish Diplomacy," concludes the editor of The Open Court. I think what 
he would like to say, but is not bold enough to say it is that, if England 
had remained neutral, Germany would have quickly crushed France and 
Russia, and the war would have been over in three months, which benev- 
olent German program was defeated by the interference of the hated 
Britishers. 

It is also intimated by this "patriotic" editor of German descent that 
the revolution in Russia was another English manoeuver. By bringing 
about a political upheaval in that vast empire, the ancient enemy of Great 
Britain, the latter hoped to eliminate Russia as an imperialistic competitor 
after the war. Russia crippled would give England a free hand in India. 
Still another motive in fomenting revolution, or at least in causing demor- 
alization in the Russian armies, was to furnish England with an excuse for 
losing the war. In the event of defeat at the hands of the central powers 
England could throw the entire blame upon the Russian fiasco. "A second 
Daniel come to judgment!" one exclaims, after reading the article on 
"English Diplomacy" in "The Open Court." 



12 



But perhaps an even more difficult situation for Mr. 
Wilson was created by his pacifist Secretary of State, 
William Jennings Bryan, to whom report says, he owed his 
election. Mr. Bryan too represented quite a large follow- 
ing in the democratic party, and his being appointed Secre- 
tary of State was in recognition of his services in a political 
way. But Mr. Bryan was even more wrong on the question 
of the war than he was on the sixteen to one formula. He 
got over his bi-metalism, but it is doubtful if he will ever 
shed his pacifism. It is true he is now anxious to see America 
win, but that does not mean that he has had a change of 
heart. Mr. Wilson had the misfortune of Mr. Bryan's men- 
tal comradeship during the most critical stages of our parley 
with Berlin. The final separation, when Mr. Bryan 
resigned, came as the climax of a struggle on the part of the 
president to shake off the Bryan brand of pacifism which 
caught the administration in its strangling embrace. From 
that day on Mr. Wilson was a stronger man. 

Mr. Bryan may be likened to a man who, in order to 
see things as he wants to see them, closes his eyes that he may 
not see things as they really are. What Mr. Bryan dislikes 
most is facts. He had a papier mache world in which 
shadows took the place of flesh and blood people, and whim 
took the place of the law of cause and effect. It was his 
advice to the president to keep on sending notes to the 
Kaiser, to keep on protesting. Some day the protest will 
take effect said Mr. Bryan. It would. If you keep on 
praying for rain, you will get rain reason's Bryan. He is 
right, the drought cannot last forever. It is the same with 
the war. Keep on protesting and we will have peace. 
"Between friends," says Mr. Bryan again, "there is no last 
word," — the idea being that we should keep on exchanging 
notes as long as ink and paper hold out. Between friends 
there is not even a first word, — but how about between 
America and a government that insists on sinking American 
ships and drowning American citizens? Is it Bryan's idea 
that Germany should go on sinking and we keep on protest- 
ing? And Bryan was at one time Secretary of State! "But 
we have no enemies," replies the pacifist. That is just what 
the ostrich said, after he had buried his head deep in the 
sand. 

Another unforgetable remark of Bryan's, while he was 
officially connected with the administration, was that "It 

13 



is not our affair how the belligerents fight." He said this to 
influence the president in the wording of his note against 
ruthless submarine warfare. Yet Mr. Bryan thinks it is his 
affair to find out what his neighbors drink, or what god the 
Chinese worship ; but he does not care how brutal or bar- 
baric is the conflict in Europe. Is it not strange? I am 
scandalized when I think of the pope's silence, — of his 
failure to condemn German outrages upon women and chil- 
dren and the way they massacred non-combatants. But the 
pope's silence is not a circumstance to the declaration of an 
American statesman, many times a candidate for the highest 
oflice in the land. Secretary of State under Woodrow Wil- 
son, a reformer by profession etc., that "it is not our affair 
how the belligerents fight." Mr. Bryan can calmly watch the 
Germans sink without warning as many passenger boats as 
they can torpedo, — see them commit rape, massacre a whole 
nation and show no more respect for the rights of man than 
for a rag! Why should he care, these things are happening 
three thousand miles from home! Mr. Bryan seemed to be 
prepared to sacrifice conscience, honor, humanity, religion, 
morality — to his pacifism. Was there ever such idolatry! 

It was also a favorite theme with the former Secretary 
of State to advise Americans to keep away from the danger 
zone prescribed by Germany. Of course, the Americans 
had the right, Mr. Bryan argued, to sail the seas, but he 
cautioned them strongly against doing so. Rather than that 
this country should go to war, let the few Americans deny 
themselves the right of going to Europe or of crossing the 
ocean. This was Bryan's solution of the trouble with Ger- 
many. It was an easy solution "Let a few Americans 
sacrifice a few of their rights." 

But the German order was not against a few Americans 
venturing across the sea; it was, on the contrary an order 
excluding all Americans from the ocean. Will Mr. Bryan 
note that? 

Moreover, the German order did not state that Ameri- 
cans went into the danger zone at their own peril, as one 
would who ventures too close to a conflagration; but it said 
plainly that they would be deliberately, not accidently, — 
but deliberately — killed if they did. There is a great differ- 
ence between saying to people: "There is a big fire up the 
street, and if you try to go near it, you might lose your life ; 
and saying. "We have started a big fire over there and if 

14 



you come anywhere near it, we will kill you." Germany 
did not say to us "You cross the ocean at your own risk," 
but "You cross the ocean under penalty of death." 

Mr. Bryan might still ask "Would it not have been 
more prudent to have minded the Kaiser's warning and 
given up the ocean to him than to be thus dragged into war?" 
Many pacifists and pro-Germans are still asking that 
question. Let us see : 

It never seems to have occurred to these "idealists" 
that if one nation may order us olTf the sea, another would 
have the right to order us to sea. If Germany may forbid 
us to trade with the Allies, the Allies have the right to 
forbid us to do Germany's bidding. And if we take Mr. 
Bryan's advice and keep off the seas, in order to avoid a war 
with Germany, by the same reasoning we should follow 
the advice of those who would have us trade with the Allies 
in order to keep at peace with them. But how can we obey 
Germany without offending the Allies, or obey the Allies 
without offending Germany? And slaves cannot choose 
their masters. 

It would follow that Bryan's solution was not a 
guarantee of peace at all, for if we escaped the enmity of the 
Germans by allowing them to dictate to us, we could only 
avoid the enmity of the Allies by giving them the same 
privilege. But we cannot both be on and off the ocean — 
both trade and not trade with Europe. If we did not fight 
Germany we would have to fight Great Britain and France. 
The English fleet would have been just as irresistible as the 
German submarine. What would lecturer Bryan have ad- 
vised us to do with the British fleet bombarding New York? 

Bryan practically advised the nation to surrender to 
the strongest among the belligerents. He deemed that 
cheaper than fighting for freedom and honor. Shades of 
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln! With Bryan 
at the helm, how long would the flag wave over the land of 
the free and the home of the brave! 

In his lecture on "The Value of An Ideal," which Mr. 
Bryan has delivered hundreds of times in eloquent accents 
and with a flow of words, occurs the following strange pro- 
nouncement: 

"Instead of trying to make our navy the largest in the 
world, let us try to make our government the best govern- 
ment on earth. Instead of trying to make our flag float 

16 



everywhere, let us make it stand for justice wherever it floats 
— for justice between man and man, for justice between 
nation and nation. And then the people of the world will 
learn to know and revere that flag because it will be their 
protection as well as ours. And then if any king raises his 
hand against our flag, the oppressed people of his own land 
will rise up and say to him, "Hands off I That flag stands 
for our rights as well as the rights of the American people I" 

What a dreamer! This is the same easy speaker who 
predicted that " a million men would spring to arms between 
sunset and sunrise, etc." Evidently he has never heard the 
maxim "Trust in God and keep your powder dry" which 
I have already quoted, or "The good God is always on the 
side of strong battalions," or "God helps those who help 
themselves." Mr. Bryan's God is more generous; he helps 
t;he dreamers. Indeed, Mr. Bryan was something of a mill- 
stone around the neck of the administration. With the elimi- 
nation of his influence or "atmosphere" there was noticed a 
decided improvement in the state department. 

The man who is president today is a totally different 
Woodrow Wilson. He has shaken off Bryanism and paci- 
fism, and is determined to win the war for America and the 
cause of civilization. Read his address to Congress, on 
December 4, 191 7: "When shall we consider the war won? 
We shall regard the war only as won when the German 
people say to us through properly accredited representatives 
that they are ready to agree to a settlement based upon 
justice and the reparation of the wrongs their rulers have 
done." 

There is neither neutrality nor uncertainty in that 
clarion utterance. The President holds fast to the real war 
aims which justified our entrance into the European con- 
flict — the defeat of militarism and the triumph of reason. 
"Every power and resource we possess, whether of men, of 
money, or of materials, is being devoted, and will continue 
to be devoted, to that purpose until it is achieved." 

Mr. Wilson's education has been both rapid and thor- 
ough. It proves there was splendid material in him. It is 
true he began as a neutral, and failed to see the bearing or 
the trend of events crowding fast upon us ; it is true he spoke 
of the European nations as being "war-mad," which was a 
great slight upon France, upon Belgium, upon England, 
upon Serbia, which had done everything to avoid war; it is 



also true that he asked for peace without victory, and did 
not know what the war was about, etc., but that Mr. Wilson 
is no more. No man is infallible, and many of the acts of the 
administration are open to criticism, but "by taking much 
thought Woodrow Wilson has added cubits to his mental 
and moral stature." He has rapidly risen in the love and 
confidence of the whole civilized world. He is today the 
star actor in the greatest drama ever staged. International 
good-will finds in our president an eloquent spokesman. 
The cause of human progress looks to him for the word that 
sheds light and the blow that vindicates right. It was purely 
by the power of clear thinking that Mr. Wilson emerged 
from the fog of pacifism. His intellect saved him and the 
nation from shipwreck. His strong will will beat Germany 
to her knees. ^ 

I believe in men who can change. In that respect Mr. 
Wilson has the advantage over Mr. Roosevelt. The latter 
made a mistake about a great American, some years ago, but 
he persists in his unjust opinion of Thomas Paine in the 
very teeth of the evidence." Mr. Wilson is more teachable. 

^ There is absolutely no excuse for such attacks on the administration 
as appeared in a recent issue of the Metropolitan Magazine, by Mr. Hard. 



- When I returned from Washington, where I had gone to see Presi- 
dent Roosevelt in reference to his attack on Thomas Paine, I said that if 
Mr. Roosevelt w'\\\ not see merit in Thomas Paine, we can see the high 
qualities of Mr. Roosevelt. He has indeed shown qualities of a very high 
order in his denunciation of German might and defense of outraged Bel- 
gium, Serbia, France, and Armenia. I am proud of the following letter 
which I wrote a few weeks ago because it shows that when I criticise anyone 
I do so without any malice : 
Editor, Truth Seeker. 
Dear Sir: — 

Your original reference to Theodore Roosevelt and Emma Goldman, 
in a late issue of the Truth Seeker, was very unfortunate. Your reply to 
your Denver correspondent, in this week's issue, in which you renew your 
attack upon Theodore Roosevelt and hold him to be less worthy of your 
esteem than Emma Goldman was more than I could endure in silence. 
In my opinion you owe Rationalism an apology. By publicly comparing 
an American president with a woman of the type of Emma Goldman to 
the disadvantage of the former you have placed all Rationalists under a 
cloud. I am not going to argue with you about the merits or demerits of 
the persons involved. If you can't see the difference between Theodore 
Roosevelt and Emma Goldman, no arguments will avail. To shut your 
eyes so as to become blind to the worth of a man like Theodore Roose- 
velt simply because he has committed a wrong against Thomas Paine is 

17 



I have heard the remark that a man who has been a pacifist 
once, like Wilson, or his present Secretary of War, Baker, 
could not be a good leader in a time of war. That suggests 
the basis of the recent criticism in Congress of the adminis- 
tration. That is what might be called, apriori criticism. 
Wilson was a pacifist. Baker was a pacifist, ergo, they are 
not the proper persons to win a war. But that argument is 
like a two-edged sword, it will hurt the man who uses it 
as much as it is expected to hurt the man against whom it 
is used. If a peace-lover is not qualified to be president or 
secretary of war in war times, then a war-like man is not 
qualified to be president in peace-times. 

Until I was about twenty-five, I was a devout Cal- 
vinist. I believed in the tenets of orthodoxy. I was an 
ordained clergyman. Does that fact make me unfit to serve 
the cause of Rationalism, or to represent and expound its 
beautiful teachings? It is true I believed at one time the 
very opposite of what I stand for now, but then, I am not 
the same man. I have, I believe, developed, matured, ex- 
perienced a re-birth. You would not be justified to with- 
hold support from me because once I was a Calvinist. Not 
to believe in change is to deny progress. To see in the 
Wilson of today the Wilson of 19 14 is to confess that all 
our efforts to educate and enlighten are a failure, because 
what men are today they will be tomorrow. What is the 
use then of propaganda, or education, or the printed word, 
if men and minds can never be changed? But if they can be, 
why not gladly give Woodrow Wilson credit for his con- 
version? The Catholics have a saying, "once a Catholic, 
always a Catholic." In all probability when the Catholics 



to prove yourself a sectarian of a very antiquated type. What is the 
difference between a man who will not see anything good in you, or true 
in your teaching, simply because you do not believe in his Jesus, and one 
who will prefer Emma Goldman to Roosevelt because the latter does not 
believe in Thomas Paine? 

You know how I have fought Roosevelt for his injustice to Thomas 
Paine; but I am glad that if I could blame him for his unfairness to a 
great American I can also commend him for his loyalty to the cause of 
humanity and his magnificent courage in denouncing the infamies of the 
most powerful "blood and iron" man in the world. That you should ask 
that Roosevelt be muzzled and Emma Goldman given freedom to betray 
the nation and make a "Bolshevik Russia" of this country was, to me, a 
bitter disappointment. Very truly, 

M. M. Mangasarian. 

18 



count their membership they include also those who at one 
time belonged to that church but who are no longer affiliated 
with it, on the plea that "once a Catholic always a Catholic." 
But that is absurd. Once all Europe was Catholic. Will 
anyone maintain that England, Scotland, France, the 
Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc., are still Catholic? 
Many of you were formerly sectarians, now you are in the 
all-embracing fellowship of freedom. If you could change, 
honestly, radically, consistently, why not the president? 

You will observe that I am not allowing party con- 
siderations to influence my attitude. That Mr. Wilson is a 
democrat instead of a republican means nothing to me. But 
I want him to remember too that as president, he is an 
American before he is the spokesman of the democratic 
party. Therefore, in my opinion, the president should not 
hesitate to invite capable men of the other political parties 
to share with him the responsibilities of the hour. This is 
not the war of the democratic party alone; it is the nation's 
war, and the services of experts, irrespective of political 
affinities, should be commandeered. A coalition govern- 
ment, or at least an inter-party war council, composed of the 
strongest men the country can ofifer, would not only be the 
real Amercian way of doing things, but it would also be the 
best way to unify and consolidate the nation behind the 
president. England and France have risen above all party 
lines, why should not we? 

Considering everything, the present administration has 
done well. Secretary Baker and his critic Chamberlain are 
beginning to understand each other better. Let us gladly 
give Mr. Wilson credit, not only for his courage in changing 
from hesitation to decision, but also for the force and weight 
he has been able to put in the American "punch." He is now 
ready to hit, and to hit hard, notwithstanding that the war 
is three thousand miles from our shores, and that we have 
been a peace-loving and unprepared nation. 

But the Democrats alone can not win the war. The 
Republicans alone cannot. All the parties should pull to- 
gether. It would be a splendid exhibition of patriotism 
for Mr. Wilson to recognize Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Taft and 
other Americans, by inviting their cooperation. Such a 
course would have made Senator Stone's partisan speech and 

19 




ittack on the admi...?..®^.^ ^65 838 | 



Senator Chamberlain's 
possible. 

Both Roosevelt and Taft are splendid Americans — 
loyal, fearless, sane. From the very first these gentlemen 
have been right on the subject of the war. Their courage in 
denouncing the iniquities of a most popular and powerful 
enemy does great credit both to their heart and head. Let 
Mr. Wilson take counsel with Taft and Roosevelt. It will 
inspire the whole nation with confidence to see love of 
country and recognition of merit rise high above partisan- 
ship and ancient political grievances. Bury the hatchet, 
gentlemen. The country expects great things of you. Let 
President Wilson, besides his own splendid service to the 
country, utilize also the brains of the big men of America, 
irrespective of party, and who will hesitate to proclaim him 
the Strong Man of the War in America today! 












20 



^- ///^ 





< IS 

IM ^^ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

llllllilllllllllllilillllllil 

018 465 838 



HoUinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



